Red pill me

>>32260758
>from time to time?
Like, whenever you leave your heated/AC'd car for the range? Or maybe it's the degrading seals? Or perhaps the delamination is your main concern?

>>32260820
Triggered.
>>32260758
No it's an actual fucking problem. They didn't issue a replace\refund\recall for shits and giggles.

>>32260758
You don't have to zero these? When I was in the military units that got these zeroed them during ntc.

So it isn't needed? Was it because of standardized training they had to zero anyway?

Genuinely curious.

>>32260758
what does the scrollwheel and up/down arrows do?

>>32260862
>scrollwheel
wut

>>32260862
Battery and brightness.

>>32260862
Looks like a brightness adjustment
>>32260877
I think hes talking about the arrow keys up front, down low.

>>32260758
I have a 512 on an AR that stays in my vehicle. Its gone from insane summer heat in a car to a outdoor subzero range and vice versa many times without losing zero.

Its been banged off of car doors and doorways and other shit. Its occasionally been dropped.

It hasnt lost zero, or delaminated, or any of that other shit that no one on this board has ever experienced.

shit always gets way overblown and kids here like to repest shot even though they have never even touched a gun.

I have a bunch of trijicon stuff, Acogs, Nikon, Bushnell, and an Aimpoint. they all do something differently and they all have their value.

I really like my Eotech and if I come across another for the right price Ill buy it too.

They're good if you have an astigmatism. They look like a series of dots, which is fine with a dot sight. No combat banana.

>>32260758
Optic sight drift is a well known phenomena, it's the physical properties of the glass nigga. Eotech got in trouble because they tried to lie about it and got caught.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (114KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1920x1080px

Don't.

>>32261049
>Eotech got in trouble because they tried to lie about it and got caught.
So they were essentially the New England Patriots? others have issues similar, they just got caught and lied

>>32260758
I like mine. The issues with it are way overblown. We have some in our unit that are like 10 years old, and have been through hundreds of the equipment-raping force of nature called airborne infantrymen. Work fine.

File: f085fcc8-8222-48e5-ab0a-51d8e9cf7329.jpg (118KB, 511x681px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 511x681px

>>32261176
If you want to point to an Aimpoint issue that was as grievous as this, go ahead.

>>32261235
Hey nigger, I'm just trying to figure out what you were saying. I'm not invested in this either way, it was just a curiosity question.

The Eotech reticle and field of view seems to be the king of optics.

>>32261288
> field of view
It's a fucking red dot

>>32261331
Yes, and it obstructs less of your field of view than any other sighting option.

>>32260915
I legitimately Has my reticle delaminate. as for the wandering zero that wasnt until down the road after it was delaminated. I got my fucking money back.

>>32261416
>it obstructs less of your field of view
Why the fuck are you not shooting with both eyes open when using a red dot? It's the entire fucking point of the optic.

>>32261235
Not him but lots of people in the military claim losing zero and their aimpoints breaking. Not to say eotech is any better.

File: working-Aimpoint-Fire-web-670x412.jpg (82KB, 670x412px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 670x412px

>>32262195
>lots of people in the military claim losing zero and their aimpoints breaking
doubt that

>>32262195
lots of people in the military are also fucking retarded

>>32262038
Having both eyes open doesn't magically enable you to see through opaque materials. A sight that is less obstructive with one eye open is still less obstructive when you open the second eye.

>>32262608
> A sight that is less obstructive with one eye open is still less obstructive when you open the second eye.
Nigger...

>>32262214
Nigger, gameboys work through fires. That picture means jack shit.

>>32262195
nah aimpoints > eopleb

>>32262666
It amounts to more that some anon on 4chan saying "lots of Aimpoints break".

File: FB_IMG_1453003282937.jpg (26KB, 453x604px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 453x604px

>>32262214
>>32262497

Milfag here, my aimpoint was absolute garbage. Fuck that trash. It battery life was fucked because of how they setup the dial on the side, it would hit things and turn on and burn out the battery very rapidly. I'm sure they're fine for range use, but they're certainly not worth even 500 bucks in my experience.

File: 1430871925662.jpg (31KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x300px

>>32262711
> it would hit things and turn on and burn out the battery very rapidly
all 50000 hours of it eh?

>>32260758
Aimpoints and eotechs are garbage, get a Trijicon acog.

>>32262711
What buttfuck retarded setup is this dogshit? If this is your issue gear it's no wonder you got some beat to shit optic on a fucking gooseneck that won't even work properly. Your experience is by far not the norm.

>>32262608
You are not looking through the optics with both eyes you dumb fucking moron

>>32262742
If he had a faulty optic, it could burn through its battery life faster than a properly functioning one.

Or you could go on assuming that all aimpoints are perfect and literally nothing can go wrong with them while focusing on everything that went wrong with a minority of eotech sights.

File: VisualPathways.jpg (68KB, 500x471px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x471px

>>32262608
>A sight that is less obstructive with one eye open is still less obstructive when you open the second eye.

This thread is a fucking ride, holy shit.

>>32262760
yes good goy put a 5lb brick on your AR

File: 40276_764957172906_37525936_41342489_15354_n.jpg (91KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 720x540px

>>32262742

Because Aimpoint is infallible and always has perfect quality

>>32262783

That's what they gave us. That's a pre Gulf War M16A2, btw. On the up side, I did get a pretty decent M9 that actually made me buy a Beretta when I got back CONUS.

>>32262792
>Or you could go on assuming that all aimpoints are perfect
Kinda like how he's assuming every Aimpoint is faulty.
>while focusing on everything that went wrong with a minority of eotech sights.

You dumb nigger, the thermal drift affects. EVERY. FUCKING. ONE. What is wrong with this goddamned thread, it's like buyer's remorse turned up to 11.

>>32262826
better quality than eotech, and if your optic burned through battery life quickly then it was clearly busted and you're a dumbfuck for thinking every other aimpoint product isn't suited for anything beyond range use because your backwater unit got issued Gulf War shit.

>>32262830

Every sight has thermal drift. Theirs is -40 to 122 degrees F, which is a outside any temperature range I'll ever operate in. Trijicon has had issues too.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/03/09/in-small-defense-of-eotech-thermal-drift-in-trijicon-mro/

>>32262701
I've personally had an issued Aimpoint battery compartment break without any abnormal abuse, while conversely my own EOTech did fine for the other half of my deployment only to later get a delamination issue after 5 years of owning it, which EOTech fixed for free before all of this lawsuit meme bullshit.

>>32262742
Seen a number of issued Aimpoints burn through a battery before a 9 month deployment was up, and we all put new batteries in just before deployment. You are assuming the sight isn't drawing excess current and that the batteries are all 100% functional.

>>32262851
>Gulf War shit
That's a Comp M4 before they switched to AA battery compartment. There are plenty of those still in circulation in combat units.

>>32262851

What makes it so great? I've never understood. 50000 hours batter life is done by fucking Primary Arms, what is so great about Aimpoint? It's a red dot. That's literally fucking it. They price themselves way high simply because they have mil contracts and people will pay for the name.

>>32262867
>Every sight has thermal drift.
The denial is real. Other sights don't have 8 MOA shifts because you took your rifle out of your heated car and to the range in January.
>Theirs is -40 to 122 degrees F
Do you have any idea how easy it is for a dark piece of metal to reach 122F?
>Trijicon has had issues too.
Trijicon didn't have the issue permeating every single one of their optics. That's also why Trijicon hasn't offered a total refund for their product, no questions asked.

>>32260915

Mines from '08 and has been great, but I am sending it in for repairs now cause the reticle has dimmed too much to see in bright daylight. Other than that it's been a solid sight that has survived a thrashing for 8 long years.

>>32262896
>Primary Arms is exactly the same as Aimpoint
i'm out.

>>32262918

Alright buddy, glad you have something to be mad at. They're certainly the worst sights out there in combat service.

I too had battery issues with my aimpoint, but because the ones you would get werent new in a blister pack, but in those foam boxes so god knows how many hours had been on them. My main issue with my aimpoint was that the battery contacts had gotten utterly fucked at some point, so you leave it on, it stayed on until it didn't, but hitting it a couple times would make it come back. My BUIS didn't stay down anymore at least, so its not like i had to flip my rear sight up or anything. For what its worth, I have an aimpoint on my rifle now, but everything in army inventory gets utterly trashed by the dumbest of the dumb, myself included at that point.

>>32262939

An excellent, well explained rebuttal.

>>32262947
I'm glad you were able to counter my points with some of your own and form a cognitive picture for others to draw from and form their own conclusions concerning this matter.

>>32262918
>Trust me, Trijicon's in-house testing is 100% unbiased and their figures are not under exaggerated

>t. Trijicon shill

File: WP_20160427_001[1].jpg (3MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3072x1728px

>>32262896
If you think a Primary Arms MD-ADS is comparable to an Aimpoint MD beyond basic profile and battery life you should probably suckstart the nearest 12 gauge.

>>32262950
Quiet, clearly the issues lay with the optics and nothing more.

>>32262950
>but in those foam boxes so god knows how many hours had been on them.
Those batteries were shit, but how often were you putting batteries BACK in the box?

>>32263000

Still waiting on some concrete reasons, not just, "it's just better lol"

>>32261598
Im not claiming some people didnt have serious issues.

not even saying eotech is superior to anything else. I like mine though.

Just saying the amount of actual issues were way overblown.

>>32260832
No the problem is the to constantly re-zero them.

File: 1408659379714.jpg (34KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 403x403px

>>32262823
>5lb
>Acog only weighs about half a pound

>>32262950
>but everything in army inventory gets utterly trashed by the dumbest of the dumb, myself included at that point.
I think this is what's getting sadly overlooked here. Aimpoints aren't invincible, and few things get as fucked up as equipment issued to grunts on deployment in a sandbox. Saying an entire brand isn't good beyond range use because you got some hardware that a dozen Privates had been banging around for five+ years before you got it is disingenuous, at best. I'm not going to say Beretta guns are garbage because I got issued a jam-happy M9 that saw service the first time American boots stomped down Baghdad's streets and had its finish worn smooth by the time I got my mits on it.

File: WP_20161128_001[1].jpg (1MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x1728px

>>32263064
If you weren't such a stupid cunt that had experience with both maybe you could wrap your diminutive noggin' around things like glass clarity, QC, seals etc. etc.

Fortunately for you, I'm here, a wondertrip that own both and is willing to broaden your horizons. Namely, by saying one is clearly better than the other, and you're a ninnyhead for even attempting to deny it. :^

>>32263154

I've had an Aimpoint and deployed with it, I'd barely rank it above my old Vortex.

>>32262214
former .mil here, got issued an Aimpoint CompM2 (M68 CCO), ACOG TA31 (I think it was a TA31, the 3.5x one), and at one point an Eotech 512.

I had no issues with the Aimpoint or ACOG, and given a choice would've kept the Aimpoint. Much better battery life than the Eotech and I can't say I found the 65moa ring all that useful for the kind of shit I and my unit did. I thought the ACOG wasn't in a good spot on magnification, too much for CQB and not enough to drastically increase my hit percentage beyond 250 yards compared to the Aimpoint.

But my Eotech was a whole world of problems.
>mount would work loose at least twice a day, fucking my zero until I retightened it (I will say it did a RtZ quite well at least)
>would randomly turn off, even after the penny-in-the-battery-compartment "fix", both under recoil and just while carried
>battery life was ABYSMAL, I was changing batteries literally every day compared to once a month on the Aimpoint (the CompM2 has pretty shit battery life compared to newer models but still orders of magnitude better than the Eotech).
>had rotor-wash debris completely shatter the front lens on an air-assault insertion during training, 100% positive the debris would've never touched the lens on my Aimpoint since we had ARD's and even if it had, wouldn't have shattered it (pretty low velocity, bunch of us got pelted with shit without so much as a scratch).
It was brand new when I got it and gave me and everyone else in my company nothing but headaches, and we begged the CoC to let us go back to the M68 until they caved. This was during the transition in M68's between the CompM2 and the CompM3L, around 2007-2008.

No, I never experienced wandering zero. Rarely did they get subjected to extreme or rapid temperature changes since our armory wasn't climate controlled, they got plenty of time to warm up or cool down.

No, none of us had one delaminate, but we only had them about 7 months.

File: WP_20160521_007[1].jpg (3MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3072x1728px

>>32263182
>I've had an Aimpoint
Unless you're talking about a brand-new MD, I don't give a shit. You getting some nigger-beaten COMP 2/4 means dick to the discussion.

>>32262792
Or the CompM2 with its 4500 hour battery life. Old tech but they stuck around the military til about 2012.

Or the CompM3L AA model with its 3000 hour battery life, or the CompM4L AA model with its 15,000 hour battery life. Aimpoint's put out a lot of good optics over the year but you can't seriously expect every rifle in the military to have a current-gen optic on it.

File: TA648MDO_45.jpg (58KB, 386x253px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 386x253px

>>32262823
A 6x ACOG with an ARD and RMR is ~2.5 lb.

>>32262809
Holy fuck, I know 4chan is full of retards, but still...
Assuming you're right eye dominant, part of your right field of view is blocked by the body of the sight. Part of your left field of view is also blocked by the sight. There are parts of the sight that obstruct both fields of view, namely everything right of the right eye's vertical midline. Because the left eye will always have a worse view of what's on the right side of the sight, the sight that obstructs the right field the least will also provide a superior field of view with both eyes open.

>>32263217

I'm talking about optics that actually deploy en masse, not range toys. You're missing the point of this discussion.

>>32263259
The point that you had a beat to shit 4th hand optic?

File: WP_20161015_009[2].jpg (2MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x1728px

>>32263259
>You're missing the point of this discussion.
Considering I'm dealing with some chode-snorting twat who is wanting to compare an MD-ADS to an H or T model MD (or maybe a PRO), I think I get to say you're the one missing the point of the discussion and that you can kindly go insert the nearest gat up your asshole until you pass out from rectal trauma. :^

File: 1.png (38KB, 424x455px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 424x455px

>>32263259
>Aimpoint micros are range toys and I'm still incapable of understanding that I got a beat to shit optic in the military that is hardly representative of the manufacturer in general

>>32263154
I own both a .mil-issued, reappropriated CompM2 and a Primary Arms MD-ADS.

Overall glass clarity is close enough most people wouldn't be able to tell a difference.

Battery life is heavily in favor of the MD-ADS, but then again it's not 12 years old and is physically much smaller.

Battery availability goes to the MD-ADS, when's the last time you found a DL1 battery anywhere other than Amazon? Meanwhile every big-box store, mall, walgreens/CVS, etc and about half of all gas stations have CR2032's. And they're about a buck each cheaper.

The CompM2 wins hands-down in anti-glare coatings, and I'm assuming anti-laser coatings (not that I ever plan on having anyone shine a laser at me through my optic but that's a feature Aimpoint advertises).

I'd say that the MD-ADS wins on factory mounts. Fuck Aimpoint's ratchet mount and its 1.5" protrusion. Aftermarket is a total wash, both have good options from reputable manufacturers for similar prices (since the MD-ADS uses the fairly standardized microdot mounts and the CompM2 has several good options plus fits any 30mm scope ring).

I've not beat up my MD-ADS. The CompM2 came pre-beaten, but still works flawlessly despite a lot of cosmetic damage.

Control usability goes to the MD-ADS, the CompM2 has zero markings from the factory and I had to mark the "off" position with a fucking white paint pen on the brightness rheostat.

Both have been proven waterproof to any depth I care to submerge an AR, and I've had both about 10 feet under water for in excess of 10 minutes straight. I *think* both carry an IPX rating but I'm not sure what, the product sheets claim 25m for the Aimpoint and 50ft for the MD-ADS.

>>32263311
I think that's a bit of apples-to-oranges there, a better mate to tthe Comp M2 would be PA's AA 30mm tube dot that they don't even make anymore (that I had 3 years ago, and I'm sure any Comp shat on it).
>Aimpoint's ratchet mount and its 1.5" protrusion
That is absolute AIDS, and anyone who denies it needs to get shot.
>I've not beat up my MD-ADS.
It should be a hoot, they take a stupid amount of damage.

I'm still intent on bullying the shit out of people who even think the MD-ADS matches up to an Aimpoint MD though. And that's coming from someone who has owned and enjoyed his for two years and still considers it one of the best deals out there when it comes to optics.

File: WP_20150417_001[1].jpg (2MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x1728px

>>32263343
Pic is the PA tube dot, I don't even remember the model designation. It was a mistake mounting it on the RPK.

>>32263343
Well yeah, but those are the two red dots that I own and have experience with.

>>32263249
Nigga, you're already lugging a fucking crew serve machine gun.

>>32263182
On a scale of great to amazing, what is the Vortex at?

>>32260758
I had one for like 6 years with somewhere between 20000 and 25000 rounds of 5.56 through it and it gave me no issues whatsoever. It was beat but it worked just fine. I still returned it though and got more back for it even though it was used and beat up and got more than what I paid for it new

>>32262896
They're also retardedly durable, reliable, have a lot of QC put into them, take things like NVGs into account with brightness settings, are made in Sweden as opposed to China, have better glass, have a crisper dot, and a whole myriad of other aspects that make them superior. You pay for what you get when it comes to optics, this is an indisputable rule.

>>32263492
>have better glass
The difference is extremely minor and varies by model. I think my MD-ADS has better glass than my CompM2.
>made in Sweden instead of China
This has nothing to do with the quality of the optic and only influences people with an anti-Chinese mindset. China can make some good shit.
>have a crisper dot
This is patently untrue. I've found several "budget brand" red dots that have every bit as crisp a dot as any Aimpoint I've looked through, and several that are noticeably better than some of the older Aimpoints.

The Aimpoint has better waterproofing. Whether this matters in the slightest to 99.999% of people both military and civilian is a matter of debate, as both Vortex and Primary Arms are waterproof to deep enough most people can't free-dive to.

I would say that generally Aimpoint's glass is somewhat more durable. The housings are about the same on durability.

You buy an Aimpoint for the illusion of reliability and the track record. But generally speaking, the price difference is large enough to not be worth it for most people.

>>32263406
And one is a 10+ year old relic. It's hardly comparable to an MD-ADS.

>>32263614
Aaand you're back to being a combative cunt for no reason.

I think that's a new record for you, made it a whole 24 minutes between shitposts in one thread. What's the deal? /arg/ hot right now or is there a particularly active goat thread up somewhere?

>>32261176
Tom Brady literally dindu nuffin
PV=nRT

File: smugcoffeegote.png (195KB, 577x689px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 577x689px

>>32263665
Pointing out an objective fact isn't shitposting you whiny bitch. Saying
>Oh, this surplus 30mm dot from back when the 9/11 rubble hadn't been cleared away really doesn't surpass this new chink microdot. I jus' dun' get why people buy Aimpoints!
is patently retarded for any number of reasons. I'm not going to decry all Surefire lights as overpriced and/or overrated because some surplus M951 I got off ebay for $50 didn't really blow away a brand new Arisaka 300.

>>32263740
No, but you going
>hey it's not a fair comparison
and me going
>I know
then you going
>B-BUT ITS NOT A FAIR COMPARISON RAAAAGH
is pedantic, superfluous, and all around dickish.

>>32263740
Is that why some M951s have dings and chips in them? Those were from Afghanistan/Iraq?

File: WP_20160225_007[1].jpg (1MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x1728px

>>32263760
Then why the fuck are you using it as any point of basis for saying Aimpoint has no right to charge what they do? You don't counter someone comparing two different products that are actually related with some buttfuck retarded comparison like yours if you want to make any degree of sense.

>>32263768
>Those were from Afghanistan/Iraq?
Maybe, more likely they were issued at some base and found their way back with some pvt. who wanted to earn some weekend booze money.

it's a nice looking optic
$500 for a glorified red dot isn't really worth it though

>>32263797
Hmm, I see. Mine had some dings in it and it looked like it had this layer of dust. I thought it was maybe some left-overs from those conflicts but I guess it's more likely than not tards marks from it getting banged around during drills.

>>32263790
I'm not?

Please point out where I did. I'd love for you to.
>protip: You're gonna link someone else's post, because the only posts I have ITT are >>32263343
>>32263406
>>32263665

>>32263740
why are you such shit

>>32263832
Is there a reason you're leaving out >>32263573
with its
>You buy an Aimpoint for the illusion of reliability and the track record.

>>32263832
fuck, linked wrong post.

My posts so far:
>>32263832
>>32263760
>>32263406
>>32263311

>>32263862
Yes, because it's not mine.

Hard to fathom that more than one person on the internet might wish to argue with you, isn't it?

File: shittymeme.png (72KB, 540x534px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 540x534px

>>32263883
>it's not mine
>>32263573
>I think my MD-ADS has better glass than my CompM2.
>>32263311
>I own both a .mil-issued, reappropriated CompM2 and a Primary Arms MD-ADS.

I really hope your mom gets raped to death in front of you.

File: Capture.png (24KB, 505x293px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 505x293px

>>32263910
>oh no, more than one person owns two of the most prevalent and cheapest AR optics on the planet! STOP THE PRESSES!
You do realize that when all the surplus/stolen compM2's hit ebay for $200 like 4 months ago half of /k/ bought one, right?

>>32263573
You cannot possibly say with a straight face that the Chinese will make a product that's just as good while costing practically a quarter as much....

File: I have a solution.png (348KB, 1102x797px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1102x797px

>>32263939
Yeah, I'm just arguing with two different anons making the exact same dumbfuck comparison between the exact same optics using the exact same terminology and posting style.

Hang yourself my nigga. :^

>>32263939
>MD-ADS and aimpoint M2
>two of the most prevalent and cheapest AR optics on the planet!

Anon btfo
How will braindead milfags ever recover

Biggest problem with the Eotech is actually the GAS LEAK!!!!!!!!

Re-zeroing for extreme temperature shifts is a must... even with fucking irons.

However, the Eotech has a huge problem in that the inert gasses will leak eventually... resulting in a really, really dim reticle.

And now you know why you need to refund that shit asap

>>32263217
Where do you live mate?

File: WP_20161005_005[1].jpg (3MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3072x1728px

>>32264201
By train tracks.

Best optic for -25C weather?